“Our Warrior Woman protesters and enemies of the adjective (who unlike Ms. Dworkin will not identify themselves) fall into the category of what Right Wing radio talkers call “liberal fascists,” and I cannot disagree…” -Barry Malzberg

The latest issue of the SFWA Bulletin went out last week while I was at BEA, including both my article about cover art and treating women as people, and the Resnick/Malzberg Dialogues, arguing against censorship and suppression. I’m not going to rehash the points I made in my own piece, but one of the many fascinating things I found in the Dialogues was the idea that the people complaining were somehow anonymous cowards sniping from the shadows.

“Anonymous.” You keep using that word…

I’ve rounded up some of the people talking about the problematic aspects of the last few issues of the Bulletin. I won’t talk about the pages and pages of discussion from the SFWA Discussion Forums, but there have been a significant number of complaints there–all of which have people’s names attached. And then you have posts and commentary like these:

Foz Meadows: Old Men Yelling at Clouds. “I could make a drinking game about this article: take a shot every time the author deliberately highlights the femaleness of the women he mentions, the better to explain how these ladies never said I was sexist…”

Peter Brett: Why I’m Renewing my SFWA Membership. ” I won’t get into the details of their remarks here, save to say that having read them for myself, I agree they were unprofessional, inappropriate, and not representative of the SF industry as a whole.”

Amal El-Mohtar: Responses to Sexism in SFWA’s Bulletin. “VP, Regional Directors, hosts of volunteers in @sfwa, all working hard, are made invisible by the effort it took Resnick/Malzberg to wank.”

Kameron Hurley: Dear SFWA Writers: Let’s Chat About Censorship and Bullying. “Nobody has to agree with you anymore. Nobody is afraid of you anymore. I know this may come as a massive shock to folks used to a position of power, insulated by groups of people who are happy to stroke their egos and soothe their souls.”

E. Catherine Tobler: Dear SFWA. “In all the complaints that were voiced, there was never a call for censorship. There was never a call for suppression. There was a call for respect.”

SL Huang: More on SFWA and the Bulletin. “The people you really should be angry with are Resnick, Malzberg, and whatever editor(s) let their article through. They’re the people who let down SFWA. They’re the people who made your public face into sexist douchebaggery.”

Silvia Moreno-Garcia: Oh, Bulletin. “In their latest Bulletin rant, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg insist, among other things, that they appeared on an issue with a Warrior Woman on the cover. They lie … They appeared in an issue with Sexy Cheesecake Lady. If they can’t tell the difference, maybe that explains a LOT.”

Ross E. Lockhart: To SFWA or not to SFWA? That is the question. “Recently, when it comes to respecting female authors and editors, SFWA has chosen a counterproductive path, giving a platform in the official SFWA Bulletin to a handful of male authors who have decided to wear their sexism outrageously…”

Rachael Acks: Dear Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick: F*** You. “If I hadn’t already had a lot of positive experiences with the older male membership of the organization, I would honestly be really wondering about that as well, since the attitude Malzberg and Resnick display with such pride belongs in an era that thankfully ended before I was born.”

Alma Alexander: The Issue 202 Controversy. “This might involve biting the bullet, calling one tradition’s tenure in the Bulletin a day, and dropping the Malzberg/Resnick conversations … It might even be time to start letting the WOMEN have a turn at having a Conversation.”

Tracy Cembor: Genre Drama. “Writers should be respected as partners in the process, and writers should treat one another as professionals and equals.”

Ferrett Steinmetz: Achievement Unlocked: Women’s Rights Advocate. “You’ve got more work to do. You’ve got to see that calling them ‘lady editors’ is actually diminishing them, that women in chainmail bikinis may be a long tradition but so are grinning Negro lawn jockeys…”

K. Tempest Bradford: Demanding the Best. “What needs to happen is that the all of people who belong to and run SFWA need to demand the best of their community. Demand that sexism no longer be treated lightly, that it be called out and put down and not tolerated.”

Shiloh Walker: I’m no Barbie. “Being a woman very often means you’re going to be insulted, ignored, condescended, treated as insignificant, devalued, viewed as an object, and the list goes on and on and on…we get so blind to the shit that comes our way at times. Maybe the problem is that we carried on with quiet dignity for too long.”

Harry Connolly: SFWA Bulletin and Sexism in the Genre. “Speech has consequences. Speech sways the opinion of others, and maybe–just maybe–that might have an effect on your life. Resnick has that power; he’s going to have to get used to the idea that others have it, too.”

Juliette Wade: This Feminist’s Thoughts on SFWA and Cultural Change. “…they were performing a culture that is sorely out of date, and I’m sure they realize that because they are defending their right to do so. Fine (though the context was inappropriate, and I’ll address that below), but they deserve the heat they are getting in response to those ideas.”

Stina Leicht: Feminist Monday. “This whole thing has been building up for three issues which is why there’s so much noise being made over it … And sadly, this controversy is just the tip of the misogyny iceberg.”

Amy McLane. Attack of the Liberal Fascists. “It is bad enough to read old men rating the hotness levels of various writers and editors and then getting indignant about being called out on it. It is gross, but you can almost sort of see how those two have gotten to the point of thinking that they’ve earned the right to be gross…”

Selma Wolfe: Choose to be Better. “The men that endlessly defend their own sexism could choose not to defend it. They could choose to focus on women’s opinions, rather than their appearances.”

T. M. Thomas. SFWA in the News. “And it’s why I think, perhaps deluded and defensive and not malicious at first, why the dinosaurs of the SFWA need to offer immediate apologies and stop trying to make themselves the victims of the piece.”

Jeaniene Frost: SFWA – Not Today. “I’m glad Scalzi agrees these are legitimate concerns that affect all SFWA members/associates and isn’t falling for the ‘but it’s just whining from a few liberal fascists!’ defense, but I also heave a weary sigh of agreement with author Jenny Truman’s Tweet: ‘Why, @sfwa, do you need a task force to determine if your own members should be given professional respect within your own publication?'”

Matt Yaeger: Space Sexism. “If you can’t defend yourself without wrapping it up in an irrelevant conclusion that people who disagree with you must be censorship Nazis (hows that for loaded terms?) then you’ve already lost your position.”

Karina Cooper: Damned If You Do(n’t). “We live in a world where men are judged by the quality and quantity of their bodies of work, and women are judged by their bodies; where men are called writers, authors, artists and creatives, and women are called lady writers and authoresses and ‘beauty pageant beautiful’.”

Added 6/4/2013:

Lauren Roy: Being Part of the Solution. “It can make newbies feel quite unwelcome when you see that someone out there — someones who are big names! — think you’re not a writer but a lady writer, as though my gender puts an asterisk beside anything I do.”

Alan Baxter: SFWA, Sexism in SFF and Missing the Point. “…members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America wrote a piece in the official publication, the SFWA Bulletin, that is astounding in its prehistoric approach to gender and dealing with justifiable complaints.”

Jane Little (Dear Author): SFF Old Guard. “…the official bulletin of the Science Fiction Writer’s Association for the last three months has kind of been an embarrassment to SFWA, at least to those of us looking from the outside in.”

Ann Laurel Kopchik: My Letter to SFWA. “But the continuing problems with blatant sexism in an official publication of SFWA makes me wonder if I’ll be treated as an equal when I do meet the requirements to join SFWA.”

Shaun Duke: SFWA, Sexism, and Progress. ” Sexism is … bullshit. We should call it out when we see it, no matter our genders. And we should definitely make sure it no longer uses the voice of the various professional organizations in our field…”

Thomas Pluck: Everyday Sexism and Giant Space-Dicks. “…if science fiction writers can imagine unheard-of future civilizations, they can unshackle their brains from the ’60s when they were cocks of the walk, and start treating women as equals…”

M. E. Garber: Are We Still Here? Really? “What woman wants to become part of an organization that objectifies her, and belittles both her and her ability to work and achieve?”

Added 6/5/2013:

Liz Argall: Thank you for Your Disappointment. “It’s like other sexist fiascoes that have happened elsewhere. Even if you believe men will always pinch bottoms in elevators, it’s still more useful to be appalled and talk about it.”

Tansy Rayner Roberts: Why It’s Important. “…this is why it matters that a professional industry journal should not publish a piece, even a deliberately backwards-looking opinion piece, which belittles and patronises women.”

Eric Zawadski: That SFWA Thing. “There is a commonly-held Internet fallacy that any negative response to your opinions is a form of censorship, and this article is thick with it.”

Kat Goodwin: You Be Ladies Now, Ya Hear! “And voices like Resnick, Malzberg and Henderson are not ignored, nor evil, nor do they have nothing to contribute as members and authors to the field. But because their viewpoints on women are so exclusionary, they can’t be the main voices speaking for the Bulletin or SFWA…”

Stephanie Leary: The SFWA Bulletin. “…the very fact that Ad Week picked up on the story illustrates why SFWA’s teacup tempest is a big deal: the Bulletin is one of the primary ways the organization presents itself to the public.”

Larry Kollar: Writing Wibbles. “I find this head-desking incredible. I’m a middle-aged whitebread dude, and I have my issues, but I fracking try to do better.”

This is just a sampling, and includes SFWA members, past SFWA officers, at least one three Hugo award winners, editors, aspiring writers, experienced writers, bestselling writers, and more. There’s a lot more out there.

110 Comments

I read about that Bulletin in your and Johns blog, but never saw a link to it. What happened that task forces are set up? Every statement concerning the Bulletin sounded like everyone would already know it.

You can ascribe whatever characteristics you want to anonymous people without anyone being able to fact-check it against reality; once you name the people, you open the door to them being able to prove your portrayal as wrong and disingenuous, and bring your own agenda and integrity into question.

I haven’t gotten my copy of the SFWA bulletin yet. Weird dichotomy of anticipation and dread.

SparkymonsterJune 2, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

Could we also discuss how SFWA didn’t publish articles by lady writers talking about these issues?

Thank you for this wonderful round-up. When I learned about this, I said my piece, as well, here. Speaking as a llama—thank you, Kameron Hurley, and “We Have Always Fought”—I’m horrified to find that an organization I dreamed of joining turned out not one but twoarticles designed to put me in my place.

One article is worthy of speculation, discussion, questions and discourse. Two, especially given the “shut up and look pretty” response of the second, is bullying.

[…] original, non-anonymous complaint about Bulletin 200. Jim Hines has an excellent list of likewise non-anonymous complaints. Ball is in your court, gentlemen. Are you going to Rush Limbaugh it again, or are you going to put […]

The complaints about Resnick and Malzberg (and the bulletin cover that started it all) have never been anonymous. I think that claim actually makes me angrier than their condescending “lady” bullshit. (Excuse my French.)

I think SFWA does a lot of positive things too. Jaym Gates and Laura Anne Gilman put in a ton of work at BEA this past week, to pick one of many examples. But I can also understand and respect why people would choose to leave, or to not join in the first place, based on crap like this.

Since I made that tweet, I read some great feedback from Rachel Swirsky, Jaym Gates et al about how frustrating it is to have their good work overshadowed by “men yelling at clouds” (I love that, Foz is awesome) and I feel now there are more people who will represent the needs of women, PoC, LGBT etc. I know how hard they, you, John Scalzi and others work to change perceptions, move things into the future, and I thank you for it.

JMSJune 2, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

They’d much rather debate a totally straw version of the years-dead Andrea Dworkin than listen to their living colleagues.

[…] “rebuttal”/”counter-opinion” piece at Foz Meadows, responding to a Jim Hines commentary on sexism in the field, and I find myself led back to a place I’ve been […]

Rachel SwirskyJune 3, 2013 @ 1:35 am

We need a task force to figure out how to implement changes. I mean, I guess why people were like “ack, a committee,” which is often my response as someone asked to *be* on committees, but the other option was “do stuff without having a few people around to vet it” which seemed silly.

*

Jim, you are, as always, excellent. Thanks for the roundup.

Thanks to everyone who wrote content in it, too, including the content I just grumbled about (in a friendly way, I hope). I’m not able to follow everything right now, especially if I’m trying to keep up with emails and hopefully actually implement triage protocols. Otherwise, I’d try to come to each of you with gratitude personally. But I can’t right now. So. Thanks for caring about this, thanks for writing about this, thanks for being sharp and incisive.

[…] an article by long time SFWA members Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick by the same. Jim C. Hines rounded up responses from sites near and far if you want to get more into the nitty gritty. And finally, the SFWA […]

[…] there was Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg being sexist assholes. Jim Hines kindly put together a linkblog on the responses. (Incidentally, John Scalzi stepped up, as SFWA president, LIKE A BOSS.) Andrea Phillips notes the […]

[…] I said it in yesterday’s post, and I’ll say it again: the conversation is important. The conversation has merit. And in the interest of keeping the conversation going (and in response to something I mentioned in yesterday’s rant, the fact that the Resnick and Malzberg took issue with their detractors’ purported “anonymity”), Hines is also keeping a roundup of the (not at all anonymous) responses to the Kerfluffle. You can find it here. […]

Thank you both for your responses. Jim (if I may), I don’t know that we’ve ever spoken, but thanks for including my post in your roundup, and thank you for your article in response to the cover discussion (which I posted about today). And Rachel, I thoroughly appreciate the way you and the SFWA leadership responded. In particular, I hope people took note of your suggestion on Twitter that more contributors to the Bulletin would really help the situation.

[…] further reading — by no means complete, but of interest (for a more complete overview, visit Jim Hines’ page): SFWA’s outgoing President Scalzi on the issue; Radish Reviews with more links and thoughts […]

[…] You can read about it here, here, some of the shit that a female SF has to deal with here or Jim Hines lists a bunch of links here. […]

Kari SperringJune 3, 2013 @ 11:54 am

That issue hasn’t made it across the Atlantic yet, so I haven’t had a chance to read in detail. But yeah, the general tone of patronage towards women and the sense of not quite being a real person for being female… Not good.
I haven’t commented, mostly due to waiting to see the issue in full, but also because, being European, I will be told by someone that my opinion is not needed, despite my membership.
Thank you for all this hard work, Jim.

As an author who writes crossover romance/SF and romance/paranormals, I can testify that the Good Old Boys Club in SF is alive and well. As an invited panelist at an SF conference I was also invited to sign copies of my books. Five authors were scheduled to sign. When I reached the tables with two other women scheduled, the tables were completely filled by six men–four were not scheduled to sign at that time. Not only would they not make room for the three women, but not one would speak to me when I spoke to them. I had to get one of the conference volunteers to come and set up another table. After that I was treated to mutterings about “bodice rippers” and condescending laughter. So to those men and others like them: You may not like what I write, and I may not like you, but surely there is room for mutual respect in the writing community amongst those who have worked hard to become published in the genre they love.

Sit on the table in front of them, the rude bastards. Scuttling off to get another table for yourselves just excuses their behaviour. It should have been THEM going.

Or, you know, spill coffee on them and take your chair back when they go to clean up.

beth meachamJune 3, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

Resnick and Malzberg are using “anonymous critics” as a rhetorical device to make themselves look better. It’s the same reason that some Christian sects claim to be persecuted. If they are aggrieved, then they are the good guys. And look! It derailed the conversation!

For the record, I am not a lady editor. I do not edit ladies. I edit books. I am a book editor. I do, under appropriate circumstances, try to be a lady.

If by “answered that question at length” you mean “wrote an outrageously wrong, badly researched, ridiculous book that is rejected by every historian who’s gone beyond a high school survey course in European history and that misinterprets 20th century to the point where he should be forced to reread William L. Shirer and John Tobin for a solid month,” I completely agree.

OTOH, if you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg proved anything by that book beyond his own stupidity, I strongly recommend going to the nearest assisted living center and actually interviewing a World War II veteran.

[…] regarding the most recent issue of the SFWA Bulletin over here. Please also see Jim Hines’ excellent collection of links. And current SFWA President John Scalzi’s […]

Lisa EvansJune 4, 2013 @ 7:34 am

I would have told them, to their faces, that they were not scheduled to sign. Then I would have demanded, loudly and publicly, that the gophers remove them and their books from the table space while the people who were actually scheduled to sign did so. That sort of conduct is outrageous and has no place at all in fandom.

OJJune 4, 2013 @ 8:17 am

Yeah, that’s probably the better option. Less satisfying to my petty sense of vengeance, but more worthwhile in the long run. Sounds like where-ever Tess was at had useless con managers, though – perhaps keeping a watch list of places that engage/excuse bad behaviour against their invited guests (even when it’s by other guests) would encourage them to lift their game?

[…] rely on someone else’s summation of events (including this one!) but decide for yourself. Jim Hines has put together a list of some of the commentary. If you’re a SFWA member, come on over to the forums and take a look. If you don’t […]

Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight, Jim. I’m very grateful for this and your past posts on sexism.

Thank you also for including my tweets and post, though I feel a bit daunted being listed with so many people I greatly admire…

moiraeknittooJune 4, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

Strictly speaking as a reader, I gotta say that these links have opened up a whole new list of authors I’d like to explore, as well as added a number of names to my DO NOT BUY BECAUSE THEY SUCK list. I appreciate it and the links very, very much.

[…] former SFWA President Russell Davis, well. You wonder why people are upset? Really? Even with such a comprehensive list of all the posts about why people are upset readily available (thank you, Jim Hines), most of them explaining it better than I did in my […]

[…] you for your disappointment, your outrage, your eloquence, your passion around the Bulletin debacle. By taking the time to articulate your disappointment you help make SFWA a better organization. I […]

So, when is the Two Minute Hate scheduled? I surely wouldn’t want to miss out on getting my hate on.

Most of the folks quoted above I’ve never read. I did however just finish reading a series by one of them, and all I can say is it was fine piece of feminist progressive romance masquerading as SF. Of course, there wasn’t a single decent, normal traditional human man amongst all the main, secondary, or tertiary characters. Plenty of upstanding LGBT (well, no T).

Here’s a cluebat, free of charge, for you folks. There are a LOT of SF readers out there who are looking simply for enjoyable escapism. Try writing that instead of attacking one another.

Hi Jim,
Thank you for linking to my post (I’m Shaun Duke, in case everyone who sees this is confused). I find it interesting how the quote you used clearly imagines sexism as some kind of disembodied entity (a demon of sorts) that should be exorcised. That wasn’t how I intended to say it, but I like it.

I’ve been trying to pull lines that are both representative and “punchy,” for lack of a better word. It’s not my intention to misrepresent anyone’s position in any way, so if you or anyone else feels like I’ve done so, please say the word.

(I don’t think that’s what you’re saying in your comment, but I want to be as clear as possible on this.)

Oh, not at all. I think you picked a good quote and it represents my thoughts well enough. I just thought it was strange the way I seemed to represent myself as talking about a disembodied sexism demon.

Thanks for the inclusion. There is a lot of good discussion going on. I feel bad for these three authors (and for that matter whatever artist did the cover portrait,) because I really feel it was the Bulletin’s responsibility. I hope that they can understand where much of the frustration is coming from, that it was seen as part of larger problems in the industry, that the context of the use of the art rather than the art itself was a great part of the issue. It’s about having organizations that are inclusionary, young and old, male and female, etc. I think SFWA has always tried to be that and will continue to do so.

I love John, but I do think he flubbed up by not reading the articles more closely. Likewise, I think Jean is an awesome human being, but the editor is responsible for the content of the publication. And I do think as writers we need to take responsibility for our words.

But you’re right that much of the reaction is because these were symptoms of a larger, ongoing problem. I think a lot of people are having trouble with that point, but I’m hoping as the conversation moves forward, that that’s the direction it moves, if that makes sense.

[…] issues. Some of this is explained by E. Catherine Tobler and a list of links was compiled by Jim C. Hines and his, Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Sexism Mess. Many authors stepped forward and told of their […]

Mr Day??? I don’t know to whom you’re referring, but then, I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to the link chain that led me here.

That said, I have to wonder when so many luminaries (okay, mostly hope to be luminaries) in Science Fiction became so embarrassingly close minded and hostile to free expression and diversity of thought.

I do appreciate you taking the time to catalog those who have expressed such liberal attitudes (you may choose to read the sarcasm that would reference classical liberalism, or the straight up modern sense). I may refer to it in the future when considering whether or not to read an author unfamiliar to me.

[…] The article I’m most connected to right now is this one which is an overview of the recent troubles with the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA) group and their quarterly newsletter. In a nutshell, an entire calendar year’s worth of issues contained material which was demeaning to some of its members. (If you need more detail, go read my article and some of the other articles in this list of links.) […]

[…] to find the cover art in question or all of the articles. Jim C. Hines has a nice summary of links here, but it centers around accusations of sexism in the SF/F publishing industry over the course of […]

[…] that it’s something that needs dealing with in this day and age. Jim Hines compiled a not-quite-comprehensive list of the issue and responses. John Scalzi as outgoing president of SFWA made an official statement owning up to the faults that […]

[…] there’s the whole dust-up among the Science Fiction Writers of America and the recent poor choices made in their newsletter. For the record, that link is to a compendium much of the backlash. The debacle is so bad even […]

[…] Since that post went live, I have watched the Internet (or at least our genre corner of it) explode with fury: directed at Resnick/Malzberg, directed at Bulletin editor Jean Rabe, directed at SFWA, directed at SFWA’s leadership, directed at critics, directed at men, directed at women, directed at young people, directed at old people. Watching the cultural debate unfold across blog posts, comment threads, forum discussions, and tweets, it often seems that the only ones who have escaped unscathed are dogs, cats, and certain species of tropical fish. For a decent sense of the rhetoric flying around, I recommend Jim C. Hines’ link roundup post. […]

[…] Jim Hines has a great list of links for those interested, but I shall make particular note of: […]

BethSmashJune 17, 2013 @ 11:35 pm

Long time lurker, first time commenter. Thanks so much for this list. I had a couple free hours the other day, and I read every single post (and most of the comments) and now I have, at LEAST 25 new to me authors to try out. So YAY! Thanks Jim! Also, so excited for your new book. 😀

[…] larger task waiting just for her. I love the fact that gender equality – something so relevant to current discussions in the SFF community – plays such a large part in Cathy’s motivations. However it did raise the question, are […]